PDA

View Full Version : And They Said it Couldn't be Done



llotter
11-18-2010, 10:05 AM
Yes, nearly everyone except those true believers in our Justice Department, said that Gitmo detainees could not and should not ever end up in our court system. But now we have our first Gitmo guy being convicted in NYC courts of conspiring to destroy government buildings and could face 20yrs or more. Finally, those at Justice have been vindicated with this conviction and there in now no further reason to delay closing Gitmo and bringing those criminals here for trial. If they are guilty, they will face justice, American style. And, we can take comfort that those convicted will bring the 'Religion of Peace' through out prison system.

Three cheers for our heroes at Justice.

Deeman3
11-18-2010, 10:53 AM
Hey! One of about 240 charges results in a conviction. Let's hope they show more mercy than they will toward Rangel or he'll be facing a letter in his file!

Draining the swamp is such hard work. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

llotter
11-20-2010, 04:14 PM
I was hoping to get some other comments on this issue.

Deeman3
11-20-2010, 04:34 PM
I think it is pretty clear that we are looking at some pretty bad folks who may escape or get minimum punishment for this mistake but they have gone too far to admit the poor practical application of the law in many of these cases.

I don't think all want them to escape justice but they now trapped by the campaign promises of the past. Now, in battle, our soldiers may have to shout out Miranda as they fire! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

LWW
11-20-2010, 04:42 PM
Actually only if they surrender.

The politicization of war will lead to higher caualties and far fewer POW's ... all sacrificed on the altar of PC.

In addition, the lesson of the Iraq war is that the next POTUS who needs to use force will know that it must be done with the utmost brutality as they have a tops of a 90 day window before the left begins their open sedition.

LWW

pooltchr
11-20-2010, 05:19 PM
When we moved the trial from a military to a civilian court, a whole different set of rules came into play. Much of the evidence, including the confession, were never heard by the jury. And this was probably the one we had the strongest case against!

I wouldn't be surprised to see some of these terrorists get probation, or 200 hours of commmunity service!

But what do you expect? Our attorney general and his law firm spent hundreds or thousands of hours defending these criminals. Now that he is charged with prosecuting them, you know he's going to go as easy as possible.

Steve

Sev
11-20-2010, 07:10 PM
Parole in 10 years.

280 plus charges including 200 murder charges out the window.

Convicted on conspiracy to destroy government property.

And an appeal is coming.

Another Obamanation.

LWW
11-21-2010, 03:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Parole in 10 years.

280 plus charges including 200 murder charges out the window.

Convicted on conspiracy to destroy government property.

And an appeal is coming.

Another Obamanation. </div></div>

These are the results one should expect when the regime's AG is selected from the primary law firm representing this gang of murderous thugs.

LWW

Qtec
11-21-2010, 04:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And, we can take comfort that those convicted will bring the 'Religion of Peace' through out prison system. </div></div>



http://www.tinyfotos.com/images/3sqjv4683ah1z6wkjchm_thumb.jpg

http://images.askmen.com/top_10/entertainment/top-10-notorious-gangs_6.jpg

http://www.wackyowl.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Mara-Salvatrucha-MS-13.jpg

Yeah, I'm sure you are right. Those guys in Sing Sing must be shi__ing themselves.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/11/18/nyregion/18ghailani2_337_span/18ghailani2_337_span-articleLarge-v2.jpg


Q............what a Dork you are!

Qtec
11-21-2010, 04:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes, nearly everyone except those true believers in our Justice Department, said that Gitmo detainees could not and should not ever end up in our court system. </div></div>

Another lie.


Q

Qtec
11-21-2010, 04:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think it is pretty clear that we are looking at some pretty bad folks who may escape or get minimum punishment for this mistake but they have gone too far to admit the poor practical application of the law in many of these cases.

I don't think all want them to escape justice but they now trapped by the campaign promises of the past. Now, in battle, our soldiers may have to shout out Miranda as they fire! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> A military jury on Sunday sentenced former <span style='font-size: 20pt'>child soldier</span> Omar Khadr of Canada <span style='font-size: 14pt'>to 40 years more imprisonment</span> for war crimes, <span style='font-size: 20pt'>including <u>the battlefield death</u> of a U.S. soldier.</span>

The sentence was the harshest to come out of a contested military commissions trial. It was 15 years longer than even the prosecution had sought.

But the sentence was essentially meaningless because a pretrial agreement, kept secret from the jury, limited Khadr’s term to eight years, meaning he would have to serve only one more year in U.S. custody.

Khadr was 15 in June 2002 when his radical father and ally of Osama bin Laden left him in the company of Al Qaeda fighters in southern Afghanistan. A month later, the Canadian youth was gravely wounded in a firefight with U.S. Special Forces and captured.

As the only surviving member of the militant cell that built bombs and observed coalition patrols near the city of Khost, Khadr was brought to the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and charged with murder, attempted murder, spying, conspiracy and material support for terrorism.
</div></div>


If you shoot someone ON the battlefiels, that's not murder that's self defence.

Scandalous.

Q

LWW
11-21-2010, 04:57 AM
Actually, if you do it as a non uniformed combatant it's a war crime according to the Geneva Conventions.

LWW

Qtec
11-21-2010, 05:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Actually, if you do it as a non uniformed combatant <span style='font-size: 26pt'>it's a war crime according to the Geneva Conventions.</span>

LWW </div></div>

Thank you....Thank you..Thank you..Thank you.


LOL.

OK. What does the Geneva Con say about torture?


Q

Qtec
11-21-2010, 05:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Grave breaches

Not all violations of the treaty are treated equally. The most serious crimes are termed grave breaches, and provide a legal definition of a war crime. Grave breaches of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions include the following acts if committed against a person protected by the convention:

* <span style='font-size: 20pt'>willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment,</span> including biological experiments
* willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
* compelling someone to serve in the forces of a hostile power
* <span style='font-size: 20pt'>willfully depriving someone of the right to a fair trial</span>

Also considered grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention are the following:

* taking of hostages
* extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly
* <span style='font-size: 26pt'>unlawful deportation,</span> transfer, or confinement.[11]
</div></div>

<span style='font-size: 26pt'>Gitmo = unlawful deportation.</span>

So Bush IS a war criminal according to you.

Q

LWW
11-21-2010, 06:24 AM
And you try so hard.

What part of "NON UNIFORMED COMBATANT" is confusing to you?

Non uniformed combatants are considered terrorists by the GC and have no GC rights.

LWW

Qtec
11-21-2010, 06:40 AM
http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/3518/610x6vk6.jpg

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:

"# 4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
# 4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:

* that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
* that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
* that of carrying arms openly;

4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war. </div></div>

eg, Uniform is not mandatory as long as the combatants or militias carry arms openly to qualify for POW status.


Q

LWW
11-21-2010, 06:49 AM
Can you show me where it says they only have to follow one of the rules?

What's that?

It doesn't say that?

It destroys your lame argument if you read the rules objectively?

I already knew that.

BTW ... from what YOU quoted:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"># 4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill <span style='font-size: 26pt'><span style='font-family: Arial Black'><u><span style="color: #000099">all</span></u></span></span> of the following conditions:

* that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
* <u><span style='font-size: 11pt'>that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance</span></u> (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
* that of carrying arms openly;</div></div>
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a247/lww/ONLINE%20ARGUMENTS/Snoopy.jpg

LWW